EU Enlargement Five Years on – a Balance Sheet
and What Next

European Policy centre BreakfastBrussels, 31 March
2009Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am glad to see that EU enlargement continues to be fascinating enough to
collect such a distinguished audience on an early Tuesday morning.

Let me thank the European Policy Centre for organising this event and for
consistently a lively and substantive EU enlargement over the years. It has been
most valuable for Europe.

Today’s event is again very timely. Many Europeans have questions about
EU enlargement in the middle of the economic crisis. This debate is likely to
get even livelier in the run up to the European elections.

It is clear that the economy and jobs are the first and foremost concerns of
our citizens today. Europeans are worried about the future of their jobs and
welfare. I feel their pain, and I see that we must respond to our citizens'
concerns by appropriate economic and employment policies.

This is what we want to do with the European Economic Recovery Plan, which
has been endorsed by the recent European Summits. This is what we want to do
with our proposals to reform global financial regulation, which set the agenda
at the G20 Summit this week. And this is what we want to do, with the social
partners, in the Jobs Summit in May, to break the negative cycle that threatens
to deepen the economic crisis.

However, while combating the economic recession, we must not make EU
enlargement a scapegoat for it, as it does not deserve that and as it is not
responsible for our social ills. Questioning our commitments on EU enlargement
will not help us at all to tackle the economic downturn.

Let’s keep in mind that our economic troubles are not the fault of a
Serbian worker or Croatian civil servant. Rather, they stem from the system
errors of financial capitalism – and originate from Wall Street, not the
Main Streets of Zagreb and Belgrade. We must tackle myths with facts, and
address our citizens’ concerns with smart economic policies.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to address three key questions today:

1. First, what is the balance sheet of EU enlargement in 2004 and
2007?

This year marks a historic double-anniversary. 20 years ago, we saw the
Berlin Wall come down and the democratic transformation intensify in Europe. In
May, we shall celebrate the 5th anniversary of the EU enlargement
that peacefully reunified Eastern and Western Europe.

This gives us a reason and also an opportunity to make a fair and factual
balance sheet of the impact of the latest round of enlargement.

Overall, EU enlargement has served as an anchor of stability and democracy
and a driver of personal freedom and economic dynamism in Europe. It has brought
about peaceful democratic change and extended the area of freedom and prosperity
to almost 500 million people.

Enlargement has increased our weight in the world – be it in
international trade negotiations or when addressing issues of global nature,
such as the climate change or development. It has substantially increased our
crisis management capability, notably for peace-keeping missions.

On the economic impact, my colleague Joaquin Almunia and I presented a
comprehensive study last month. Its main finding is that enlargement has brought
benefits to people both in old and new member states.

To illustrate this with a concrete example: trade between the old and new
member states grew almost threefold in less than 10 years (from €175
billion in 1999 to approximately €500 billion in 2007). And even more
illustrative is the fivefold growth of trade among the new members themselves,
from less than €15 to 77 billion in the same period.

This is a key factor explaining why, since 2004 until the current financial
crisis truly broke out, there was a robust 1.5% annual growth in employment in
the new member states – which went alongside continuous job creation in
old member states, about 1% per year.

Institutionally, fears that a Union of 27 Members would face decision-making
gridlock have proved unfounded. However, greater heterogeneity requires a
greater effort to achieve common positions and policies.

Jacques Delors once said that to grow from 12 to 15 to 25 members we would
need time, family spirit and an understanding of each others’ psychology
and traditions. In other words, the contract of marriage between 27 countries
has to be consolidated and supplemented.

To achieve this, we need to continue with internal reforms to make the EU
deliver the results its citizens expect. The Union’s ability to function
efficiently must, and can, be further improved. We’ve done it before, and
we can do it again, if we have the political will – or rather as we have
it.

2. What lessons have we learnt from the previous enlargements?

Recently, we’ve heard calls for consolidation of European integration.
I can say that that's exactly what we have been doing in the past years.

This has been achieved by building on the three policy principles that the
Commission proposed in 2005 and the Council confirmed in 2006 as our "renewed
consensus on enlargement": Consolidation, Conditionality and
Communication. You can call them the three Cs if you like.

These principles remain valid today. We have consolidated our commitments
– we don’t make new commitments now, but we respect the existing
ones given to the countries of South-Eastern Europe. We have reinforced
conditionality for instance by introducing benchmarking methodology that has
given spine and rigour to the accession negotiations with Croatia and Turkey.
And we need to communicate the successes and challenges of enlargement better to
the wider public.

How about the countries of South-Eastern Europe, then, which have been at the
focus of our consolidated enlargement agenda since 2004? I recall my
parliamentary hearings in 2004 when I was asked what my programme as the
Enlargement Commissioner for the next five years would be. I said I wanted to do
my part to deliver on six goals to be achieved during the present five-year term
by the end of 2009:

In 2009 there would be an EU of 27 member states.

Accession process with Croatia would reach its final stage.

The other Western Balkan countries would be firmly locked into the European
orientation by Association Agreements.

Turkey would be firmly on a European track.

Kosovo's status would be settled.

And Cyprus would be reunified.

Looking back at the past years, we have achieved five out of these six goals
set in 2004. We have done so by working together with the European Parliament
and the Council. And by the way, there is now a serious process going on to
reunify Cyprus – our priority this year.

3. So my third question is: what is the way ahead?

In the Western Balkans, the European perspective has been instrumental in
taming extreme nationalism and stabilising peace through democratic and economic
transformation. We have seen a process of steady, although sometimes slow,
stabilisation over the last few years.

Compared to many other regions in the world at the moment, South Eastern
Europe portrays a certain relative political stability for the moment –
not least thanks to its European perspective.

But we shouldn't lull ourselves into any kind of self-complacency as regards
the future development of the Western Balkans, nor of Turkey. There is no end of
history in sight, nor is there an eternal peace quite yet.

We should not put our achievements at risk, but instead firmly maintain the
European perspective, with the ultimate goal of EU membership once the
conditions have been met by each country on its own merits.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

To conclude, let me comment on one essential element of the 2006 renewed
consensus, which is that we need to take into account the EU’s integration
capacity. This refers not least to our institutional capacity.

For me, it is completely clear that we need at least the Lisbon Treaty to
make our Union more effective and democratic, and also better able to pursue our
common values and interests in the world. We needed the Treaty yesterday, and
need it at the latest tomorrow.

But there is simply no reason to break off our successful policy of
stabilisation of South-Eastern Europe – sometimes also referred to as
enlargement – to achieve that. Let’s not play with fire. We should
not take any sabbatical from our invaluable work for peace and progress that
serves the fundamental interest of Europe and the Europeans.

The credibility of the EU perspective is the guarantee for what we have
achieved so far, and for what we want to achieve in the future. It will help
maintain stability and drive societal progress in South-East Europe.

We don't have to move at the speed of the Eurostar, but we need to keep on
moving. The journey itself is at least as important as its destination.

Besides, we should recognise the fact that even the fastest scenario for the
next accession of a new member state is still clearly slower than the slowest
envisaged scenario for the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. The time is on our
side: we can pursue deepening and widening in parallel.

I confess that I subscribe to what Philippe de Schouteete, the respected
constructor and conceptualiser of European integration, has said:

“Europe as a continent can not give up enlargement without denying its
vocation, nor can it give up deepening without losing its dynamism. Like we have
always needed to reconcile unity and diversity, we should reconcile widening and
deepening.”

That is a worthy guiding principle for all those current and future
generations of leaders who pursue to build a strong and united Europe.

I trust that this event, too, serves precisely that purpose. Thank you.